ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 97-1527

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 21 October 1997

Telecom Order CRTC 97-1527

By letter dated 30 November 1995, fONOROLA Inc. (fONOROLA) submitted a revised affidavit, pursuant to Telecom Order CRTC 95-1258, 17 November 1995 (Order 95-1258), signed by the University of British Columbia (UBC), stating the cross-border facility leased from fONOROLA was dedicated to UBC for use by its employees and was not resold and shared.

File No.: 8626-F1-01/97

1. Previously, by letter dated 28 March 1995, fONOROLA had applied for contribution exemption for one dedicated Canada/USA circuit leased from fONOROLA to UBC. In Order 95-1258, the Commission had stated that fONOROLA's application was approved from the date of application up to 12 May 1995 (the date of disconnection), subject to receipt, within 30 days, of a revised affidavit from UBC specifying that the circuit in question was a dedicated line used solely by its employees and it was not resold or shared.

2. Further to the above, BC TEL submitted letters dated 7, 12, 13 December 1995, 2 May 1996, and 26 June 1997. Commission staff issued a letter dated 23 June 1997. fONOROLA issued letters dated 8 December 1995 and 2 July 1997.

3. BC TEL submitted that, in correspondence to the company, UBC had acknowledged that TRIUMF, a separate research facility located on UBC's campus, was furnished access to the Canada-U.S. private line in question. BC TEL understood that TRIUMF was staffed by employees of four universities (UBC, Simon Fraser University, University of Victoria and University of Alberta) who remained on the payroll of their respective university while working at TRIUMF.

4. BC TEL submitted that if only UBC employees working at TRIUMF were able to access the private line via authorization codes, then UBC's revised affidavit would be correct. However, BC TEL stated that if all persons at TRIUMF were afforded access to the private line in question, then it would be incorrect to claim that the private line was a dedicated service.

5. BC TEL submitted that in its correspondence in this matter, fONOROLA had provided nothing to refute any of the information provided by BC TEL with regard to the use of the circuit in question. BC TEL submitted that, fONOROLA had attempted to argue that BC TEL's information regarding the use of the circuit was irrelevant and that it was improper for BC TEL to have raised the issue of the use of the circuit in the context of fONOROLA's application.

6. BC TEL stated that it did not doubt that UBC's revised affidavit of 28 November 1995 was based upon UBC's firm belief that UBC and TRIUMF comprise a single customer. However, BC TEL submitted that the information in that affidavit was incorrect when viewed in light of the current contribution regime and that there was no basis for an exemption from contribution for the circuit in question.

7. fONOROLA stated that the concerns submitted by BC TEL were irrelevant for a determination of whether a particular circuit was exempt from attracting contribution. fONOROLA submitted that Applications for Contribution Exemptions, Telecom Decision CRTC 93-2, 1 April 1993, does not require customers or companies filing affidavits for the purposes of contribution exemption to state that employees of the customer must have access codes designed to restrict access to the services or circuit in question. fONOROLA was of the view that the revised affidavit filed 30 November 1995 met the Commission's filing requirements.

8. Based on the record of this proceeding (including the definition of customer as it existed in BC TEL's tariffs at the time), the Commission is not persuaded that TRIUMF and UBC can be treated as a single customer, regardless of whether TRIUMF is a legal entity in its own right. As foreshadowed in Order 95-1258, the crucial issue is whether non-UBC employees can access the cross-border circuit. The Commission notes that fONOROLA did not dispute BC TEL's submission that non-UBC personnel working at TRIUMF could have such access. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that it is reasonable to conclude that non-UBC employees could access the circuit. The UBC affidavit would appear to have been based on an erroneous understanding of who is a UBC employee. The Commission is of the view that, in these circumstances, the UBC affidavit does not satisfy the condition established in Order 95-1258 for final approval.

9. Based on the above:

(a) the Commission finds that fONOROLA has not demonstrated that the circuit is used solely by UBC employees;

(b) accordingly, fONOROLA's application is denied; and

(c) fONOROLA is directed to pay forthwith contribution with respect to the circuit in accordance with BC TEL's tariffs.

Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request.